Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 was allowed; the appointment of the appellant was quashed and it was directed as follows:

"49. In the light of the above discussion and for the observations made, the findings reached at and for the reasons assigned above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
[i] The official respondents shall proceed to award the marks to the candidates for the two segments of the selection process - [a] the oral interview; and [b] the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification; from the marks Page No.# 6/21 already awarded to them on the basis of the weightages for the said two segments at 25% and 15% respectively.
(1) Shri Sanjay Kumar, IASD, Comr. & Secy. to Governor (2) Shri Motuo M. Sote, Addl. Secy. to Governor (3) Shri Saroj Kuamr Sahoo, Dy. Secy. to Governor (4) Shri George Abraham, Dy. Secy. to Governor Page No.# 9/21 Decisions taken during the meeting of the Selection Board
(i) On scrutiny of the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification of the candidates shortlisted for the Written Test, the Board after taking in account the works experience and special qualification possed by the candidates has observed that there is a need to review the marks kept for Oral Interview and after detailed discussion it was decided that marks in the Oral Interview may be reduced from 30% to 25% and the marks for the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification may be increased from 10% to 15%. The total marks will be 40% as was given in the Call Letter of the candidates.
(iii) The Selection Board members thereafter finalized the marks for the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification for all candidates. The marks given to each candidates work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification is enclosed.

A copy of this decision of the Selection Board may be put in the notice board of Governor's Secretariat for information of the interested candidates."

Finding fault with the afore-noted changes, the learned Single Judge has observed as follows:-

"43. One fundamental flaw is noticeable in the decisions taken by the Selection Board in its Meetings, held on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 respectively. It is a universal norm in a selection process for a selection body to finalise the selection criteria before the Page No.# 18/21 commencement of the selection process. From the decision taken by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016, it is noticed that the Selection Board scrutinised the testimonials, documents, certificates, etc. of the candidates for the segment, 'work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification'. It was after taking into account the works experience and special qualification possessed by the candidates, the Selection Board had opined that there was a need to review the marks earmarked for oral interview. It was thereafter, decided that the marks earmarked for the oral interview were to be reduced from 30% to 25% and the marks earmarked for the segment, 'work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification' were be increased from 10% to 15%. The Selection Board further observed that with such reduction and enhancement of marks, there would be no change in the total weightage of 40% earmarked in total for the said two segments of the selection process, as even in the call letter issued to the candidates on 08.02.2016, it was mentioned as 40%. The Selection Board in its Meeting, held on 13.07.2016, scrutinized the results of the written examination of the candidates. On scrutiny of the results of the written examination of all the candidates, the Selection Board found that only three candidates could score more than 50% in the written examination and as a result, only these three candidates had become eligible to appear in the oral interview. It was after such scrutiny, the Selection Board decided to relax the minimum eligibility marks for the written examination from 50% to 45% to qualify for the oral interview. These decisions taken on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 go to indicate that the Selection Board had arbitrarily changed the selection criteria depending on the performance of the candidates in the written examination and on the basis of work experience and special qualification possessed by the candidates and not on the basis of the selection criteria it had earlier laid down in the call letter dated 08.02.2016. These decisions had clearly amounted to a situation of putting the cart before the horse. These decisions are clearly anathema to the constitutional principles embedded in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. These decisions would fail on the touchtone of fairness, consistency, transparency, and predictability and they are clearly offensive to the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The reasoning given by the Selection Board that by changes made through these decisions would not bring about any change in the total weightage of 40% earmarked for the two segments cannot be a saving grace.